Elizabeth Kucinich did NOT say, "My Husband Would Absolutely Consider Running With Ron Paul"

The other thread title is simply misleading because Elizabeth Kucinich never said it like that. The way it was worded from the reporter, he threw it at her as an option, and she pretty much only agreed to it as being an option "absolutely", but she never said, "My Husband Would Absolutely Consider Running With Ron Paul".

If you're gonna crucify the Kuciniches, crucify them for exactly what she said, not for something dreamed up by someone out to create another lynch mob mentality towards Dennis. Listen for yourself to the video, and if you're going to get mad at her, get mad at her for exactly the way she said and not for the way someone else would like you to think. The link to the video is posted in the other thread.

the question was framed.

Amazing how easily things can be distorted in this shallow, sound-bite world of ours.

:banghead:

Exactly. That's what I was trying to explain, but you did it nicely in fewer words.

I saw it at YouTube, but thought I'd followed a link from here.

That's how I remembered it ~ she's saying that Kucinich would absolutely give consideration to running with someone like Ron Paul.

(Only "absolutely" is in quotes in the thread you're talking about.)

Which means that either she is lying, or DK would absolutely consider running with Ron Paul. Which is offensive.

But it certainly isn't offensive to the millions of Ron Paul supporters. And the Dems would be smart to try to convert some of them to our ticket.

I thought it was a brilliant thing to say.

Brilliant for the one person whom probably knows him better than anyone to suggest, nay confirm with absolution, that she believes her husband supports the positions of someone that is anti-gay, anti-choice, and a republican? And supports those positions to such a degree that she believes he would consider Paul a positive addition to his "democratic" ticket. Well what does she know, she is only his WIFE! Not so brilliant...

they will be looking elsewhere. So I think it's a great idea to start attracting them. Wouldn't you rather see them vote Democratic than Republican?

I do not want a bunch of republicans jumping over into our democratic primaries perverting our base and voting for the democrat that best supports their republican ideals. I would trust that would be obvious. I would rather they stay right where they are.

And if you are talking about them flipping parties for the presidential election, IF Kucinich won the primaries AND chose Paul, I would feel equally pissed, but wouldn't they flip anyway once he announced Ron Paul as his running mate? Kucinich and his wife even by letting this idea float have turned off Dems, sends a message that if he was chosen, even if he did not choose Ron Paul would absolutely choose someone like him, and he isn't going to be winning any dem votes that way. If I wanted a Repub, I would be one.

That's just nuts. With attitudes like that, Democrats WILL lose elections.

...rather than saying rather coyly, "I like Ron Paul."

so why should Dennis have to clarify something his wife throws out there?

I would expect Edwards to clarify that statement.

pandering to the Internet demographic. If he rejects the notion of running with Ron Paul, I'll know my suspicions were ill-founded and that he is still an honorable man. Otherwise, well, I won't.

it's just the way some weak-minded people argue.

Try to discuss damn near anything on this board while showing a Clinton avatar, and you'll soon learn that.

YouTube posters often compare the two, focusing on the similarities and ignoring the differences ~ maybe this is about playing to Paul's Internet base.

being able to reach across the aisle.

has done it successfully on numerous occasions.


EDIT -- I got to thinking, not sure why you posted this -- was it a question? Not sure how it ties into the Kucinich discussion. Enlighten me, please. Thanks! :)

Both are pariahs in their own parties.

the vid of "I like Ron Paul" is from Wednesday (I think).

Was that video filmed BEFORE his wife spoke?

The woman merely said Paul is a truth teller about the war - which is correct. From this to ascribing her ticket making abilities - it's a very long way.

she answered "absolutely" in response to the question would Dennis consider running with Paul. Furthermore, Dennis could have clarified it today by saying he would not consider it. He hasn't. I suspect he's trying to tap into Paul's greater base of supporters. And frankly, Dennis shouldn't consider it. Paul is, among other things, a fundy.

From supporters of pro-war candidates - the world is upside down.

since her name is Elizabeth, and not Dennis.

Do you believe Dennis is not open about his beliefs with his wife? Or was she correct in her statement?

Wake up

That was my problem with this in the first place.

Edit: Given his refusal to clarify the statement, well, there goes DK's credibility as a truth-teller, right out the window.

Your questions are not only goofy, but they're irrelevant. She can't be a liar for expressing her opinion on what her husband might do. Nice try...

Look, there are only two options: Either DK would or would not consider Paul. If it's the former, she is telling the truth.

If it's the latter, there are only two options: The first, as you just suggested, was that she was aware that DK would not consider Paul, and she lied. The second is that she was not aware of DK's actual beliefs, as you are now implying.

Either she's telling the truth, lying, or she's misinformed.

lol

I'll grant you that, my friend.
:thumbsup:

into defeating their own arguments.

I think that's why people think I'm a troll sometimes. Trolls try to get responses for kicks. People get angry at that. By eliciting responses, I get people to realize flaws in their arguments. Sometimes they realize they were wrong. Sometimes they explain to me how I was wrong. Sometimes they stop trying to argue, because cognitive dissonance kicks in and they get mad. Lo and behold, BB is a troll.

Well, no, not really, we just argued and you got mad at me.

just not here, though.

makes you think her and her husband have specifically discussed having RP as a running mate?

And why would her saying DK would "absolutely CONSIDER" him as a running mate mean anything at all? DK is an honest, thorough man, who honors all arguments. Of course he would CONSIDER it. Then, being the stand-up guy that he is, he would REJECT the idea. It was the perfect way for her to phrase the answer diplomatically. As for DK not clarifying... why should he? Why burn a bridge that could come in handy? Why would DK turn away RP supporters?


It's too early to even remotely consider running mates and as far as i know, the candidate has little if anything to do with who gets chosen. So i think at best, this is a strawman argument. I know you feel otherwise... and i doubt anything i've said will sway you. But i really don't think this is a TRUE or FALSE type of situation. mho.

:shrug:



full disclosure: I am a Kucinich supporter.

I believe she was talking off the cuff. And, I think that it will benefit Kucinich in the long run. But, he must clarify soon. Kucinich has issues with the two-party system, but has said and understands that it is the reality. I don't think he is entertaining the idea of running with Paul.

He may be using this to reach more internet folks, I believe most of the Paul supporters are misinformed and fooled by Paul. If they dug deeper, they may find that Kucinich is the one that truly falls in line with them more ideologically.

You call in pandering, it's just politics. Kucinich should have the youtube crowd. I bet that this little clip has sent a lot of Paul supporters to his site. When they meet Kucinich, they should forget Paul.

However, Kucinich needs to clarify for HIS base, and soon. One statement, which I anticipate, will turn this into a big win. New eyes from a receptive demographic.

Because Ron Paul is a good man, although maybe not quite the right guy for president.

underprivileged, disabled, do manual labor, are elderly, care about the environment, etc.

I'd wage quite a bit that you're a white male betwee the age of 25 to 40.

I require a bit more than "conviction" to call a politician a good man.

He even hired blogger Davis Fleetwood recently to do just that. I agree that many Paul supporters at YouTube seem misinformed, and would probably be in DK's corner if they knew the differences.

I'm waiting for a statement from him ~ should be interesting.

they had not talked about it! It is rather out of the blue.

... Howard Dean is a latte drinking, Volvo driving ultra liberal with a dangerous temper and a blood-curdling maniacal scream.
:hi:

I'm not. I plan on voting for DK in the primary- though as I take pains to point out, I'm supporting his ideas more than him. I know he doesn't stand a chance, but I want to endorse some of his ideas, and possibly send a message to the dem party.

No wonder your world is upside down; you clearly jump to asshat conclusions. I didn't accuse Dennis of anything nefarious, and his wife, bucko, is presumably in on what he thinks, and in campaigning for him, acts as a spokesperson. this isn't rocket science, genius.

at that moment. They both currently are working on a bipartisan legislation geared at restoring checks and balances.

"Dennis deeply respects Dr. Paul, and his courage and convictions. Beyond that, I couldn't tell you."

Do you really think that politicians should agree to things they don't believe if doing otherwise might upset someone?

(I do improv comedy. I came up with the "appropriate" response instantly in my head.)

Her husband is having to work with Paul on some legislation. She is not lying and she is not lying because she is stupid or can't think on her feet. If you ever listened to her on issues and explanations of positions when she gives talks, you would know that.

that Kucinich is considering a run with Paul, she meant to say that. She did not mean to be tactful; I already posted what a "tactful" response would be. Tact would be politely declining to give an answer (say, claiming lack of firm knowledge) while praising Paul's convictions. And she is smart enough to know what is expected of a tactful answer. She went well beyond what is expected of a tactful answer. She claimed there was consideration of a run.

Meanwhile, you've beating this horse way past his life expectancy

She provided a suitably diplomatic response. "That's a consideration. Absolutely!"

Reminds me of a good and very diplomatic friend of mine.

If you said to her, "Hey, what would you think about donning weasel suits, smearing our faces with cold cream and doing the lambada on ice skates?" she'd probably answer, "Well, that's certainly a possibility."

Which it is. But that's not the same as saying "I'd love to." Not even close.

Puhleeze! Some people really need to get a grip.

"That's a consideration, absolutely!"

Hillary's SPOUSE, not teh actual candidate.

with the scenario presented, make it Bill. Would you really say that it would be okay for Bill Clinton to claim David Duke was "absolutely" a possibility for Hillary's VP?

I am about over this silly argument.

Why am I not surprised, given the OP thinks "defending the Clintons is lke a full time job":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3752240&mesg_id=3753273

I'm sure Elizabeth Kucinich meant exactly what she said. She is not Clintonian, after all.

She is a young, green card holding, educated Limey hippie.

Paul is totally batshit crazy. Perhaps this brouhaha will result in another divorce?

Hiiiilarious. All of this gnashing of teeth that "The other thread title is simply misleading".

And yet K&Ring a thread that itself is misleading.

:rofl:

but are fortunately few in numbers off the internet.

*It's OK When Dennis Does It

"If you're gonna crucify the Kuciniches, crucify them for exactly what she said, not for something dreamed up by someone out to create another lynch mob mentality towards Dennis."

"crucify"? "another lynch mob"?

Yikes. That's just crazy talk. No candidate is treated so reverently as Dennis, and yet legitimate questioning and criticism is deemed by many, including the OP, as "crucifying" by a "lynch mob".

There's a lot wrong with using such language, and if anyone used it wrt Clinton or Obama, they'd get plenty of well deserved shit for it.

mtsnake, consider this your portion of shit, for indulging in such ridiculous language.

His wife is apparently English and fairly new at this game to boot, and deconstructing her every off-script whistle stop word seems kind of Rovian.